This is one of those times where you should be glad you live in California! Thanks Kimba!
Author: Papa Giorgio
Islamo-Nazis Kill Teenagers for Reading Their Bible (Plus: Pat Condell)
This comes from Religion News Blog:
NEW DELHI, INDIA (BosNewsLife)– Suspected Islamic militants have killed two Christian teenagers who were reading the Bible in the disputed Kashmir valley, divided between India and Muslim Pakistan, BosNewsLife established Tuesday, January 8.
The victims were identified as Arifa, 17, and Akthar, 19, the daughters of Gulam Nabi Dar, said local missionary Mercy Ciniraj, who knew them well. “The [murdered] girls were believers and used to read the Bible through underground ministries.”
She told BosNewsLife that “the girls were shot dead” last Monday, January 31, in the Baramulla area in Indian-controlled northern Kashmir, bordering Pakistan.
They were “brutally murdered” by at least three fighters of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan based Islamic militant “terrorist” group, she explained. Local police reportedly said in statements that they found two bodies near their home and that militants were to blame.
ISLAMIC STATE
Lashkar-e-Taiba, or the ‘Army of the Righteous’, seeks to introduce an Islamic state in South Asia and to “liberate” Muslims in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
India has identified the group as the alleged masterminds behind the the 2008 terror attack on the Indian financial capital of Mumbai that killed 166 people.
The killings of Arifa and Akthar show that militant attacks also include targetting devoted minority Christians, Ciniraj suggested.
The girls’ involvement in Bible reading was among several projects of mission group Salem Voice Ministries (SVM), which supports evangelism and aid among MuslimsHindus in India, including through underground house churches in Muslim-majority Kashmir. and
BELIEVERS IN FEAR
After last week’s killings, however, local “believers are totally in fear,” added Ciniraj, who founded SVM with her husband, Indian pastor Paul Ciniraj, a former Muslim.
The January 31 attack was believed to be the first incident of civilian killings by militants in the Kashmir valley, this year. The violence also added to other difficulties of Christians in Kashmir valley, as they suffered of diseases, explained Mercey Ciniraj to BosNewsLife.
“Since the last one and half months we all are fed up with different types of sickness. Few days we suffered with reddish eyes one by one [and] after that we were attacked with viral fever too,” she said, adding that local believers asked for prayers.
Despite their concerns, local Christian workers plan to continue preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ who they believe gives eternal life to everyone who believes in Him, Ciniray stressed. “By God’s grace now we recovered [of illnesses] and are fully active with the underground church ministries and reaching the Gospel at any cost who never have a chance to hear it.”
This following video is VERY GRAPHIC and I do not recommend it for the faint of heart. It is Islamic violence against fellow Muslims (maybe a sharia law killing? Or the people being killed were moderate Muslims?). You can see that this religion of death feeds on itself as well as other faiths, and non-faiths for that matter. You can watch it HERE.
Tea Party Will Destroy America
Gutter Up History for the Scurvy Bastard In Ya
How the lower class helped America’s libertarian slant (BigGovernment h/t):
This interview with the author reminds me of one of my favorite CDs:
An Affair To Remember-er,I mean-Forget
Editor’s comment – A 67-year old man has nearly open affairs all over Harrisburg. Fine. But two problems here, aside from the affairs. Number One – the blatant hypocrisy of the media. If Rendell had been a Republican, imagine the front page headlines in the NY Times, LA Times, all over CNN and MSNBC. Think Mark Sanford. Number Two – Ms Snow was on the public payroll, in a very public position. Yet the national media still ignored the blatant nepostism of a Democrat Governor giving his “alleged” Mistress a high-profile, high-paying position.…(read more)…
An Example of Media Bias~38th Annual March for Life vs Immigration Protest
CNN devoted three and a half minutes of coverage on Monday’s Newsroom to a protest by “two dozen, maybe three dozen” people who were against two proposed laws targeting illegal immigration in Arizona. The network showed live and taped footage of this liberal protest. By contrast, CNN spent a mere 11 seconds to the March for Life in January and showed no footage from the pro-life demonstration. (NewsBusters)
Thank you for making the 38th annual March for Life the biggest and most enthusiastic ever! The number of marchers who made the journey to our nation’s capital once again exceeded the record number of participants that attended the previous year. Some estimaters pegged the number at approximately 400,000, about the same as 2010. But other experienced observers thought that the crowd was much larger than last year, especially considering that tens of thousands of marchers got a jump start and reached Capitol Hill before the main contingent even left the staging area! (March for Life Site)
So you have all these members of Congress, plus about 400,000 people, not to mention the many elsewhere — for instance, most capitals and or major cities had marches. And while these were not as large as the Washington march… they were still more than dozens of people giving Arizona another “black eye.”
An Unarmed Protestor in Egypt Shot by Police (Mature Rating)
To be fair, it isn’t clear in this camera view if these were real bullets or rubber.
To Raise,Or Not To Raise,That Is the Question (An Act of Worship for Some)
(Imported from Blogspot) This is a partial import from Mod-Blog. After a discussion about the act of raising one’s hand’s I was preparing to blog on it… however, after reading Nomads post I am merely going to tout this post as something I cannot top or I would at the most equal. So if it has already been done, why not give props where props are due. Plus, I may be a bit lazy right now.
[import]
BIBLE STUDY: Raising your hands in church
I come from a conservative background of the Protestant church tradition. My friends and family tend to be non-demonstrative lot at church, with little more than the occasional “A-men!” when we are REALLY moved. So, it has bothered me to see a particular phenomenon from the charismatic/pentecostal tradition starting to appear in church – the raising of hands. This action, usually done during singing, always seemed showy to me and distracting. But, it is important to separate “it bothers me” from “it is wrong.” So, I decided to do some research into the phenomenon, and see what the Bible had to say.
First, I found an amazing number of defenses of the practice online. The best explanation of why people lift their hands in worship came from here.
– Lifting the hands is a symbol of surrender.
– Lifting the hands is a symbol of trust.
– Lifting the hands is a symbol of openness.
– Lifting the hands is a symbol of affection.
The “surrender” symbolism is especially significant, it seems to me. In my own observation, I have noticed that the lifting of hands is especially common among women in the churches I have visited. Surrender is something that is culturally-appropriate for women in America – giving oneself to your husband, to your children, to your church, to your friends – but is less culturally-appropriate to the rugged individualism which governs men in our culture.
In looking through scripture, there appears to be three classifications for the raising of hands:
1. Prayer (5 references): 1 Timothey 2:8, Lamentations 3:40-42, Psalm 28:1-2, Psalm 141:1-2, Nehemiah 8:5-6
2. Worship (2 references): Psalms 63:3-4, Psalm 134:1-3
3. Study (1 reference): Psalm 119:48
Going by the pure number of references, it is clear scripture favors the raising of hands as a posture of PRAYER over worship. However, it is equally clear that scripture does call for the lifting of hands in worship. One interesting note from the same article listed above may be significant in this.
The Hebrew word for hand is the word yad; yadah means to “throw out the hand” or to worship with extended hands.
Which may indicate that the extension of hands to an object of adoration is simply an assumption of Hebrew culture.
Another article noted one other aspect of the raising of hands – which C.S. Lewis also applies to kneeling in The Screwtape Letters – is that movements and positions of the body influence the attitude of the mind and heart.
But of note also is this article which makes the claim that all raising-of-hands references in the old testament are related to the sacrificial system, and thus are inappropriate to a Christian world where sacrifices have been fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Christ. The author dismisses the 1 Timothy 2:8 scripture as a figurative passage asking for “clean hands” of Christians.
Overall, the middle road here appears to be that the raising of hands is a Biblical practice. It is permitted and encouraged by Scripture, but is not commanded or required. This article does a good job of summarizing what I have come to: worshiping with lifted hands is appropriate and scriptural, but should be done with an eye toward its potential impact on others around you. If you are in a service with people who will find it distracting, or who will be tempted toward showing off, then keep your hands down. If you are in a service where people are comfortable or ambivalent to the practice, go right ahead.
For me, this study has been a comfort. It reminds me that my own prejudices should not rule how I view others, or their relationship with God. Surely, some raise their hands to be showy. But others do so with sincere hearts, looking to praise God and obey scripture.
Posted by Nomad
[/import]
I, Papa Giorgio, like to raise my hands, but not lifted up all the way so as not to block the song lyrics or cause a distraction for those behind me. (I use to hate as a youngster, and a shorter person, competing with peoples arms getting in the way of the lyrics… so I am conscious of this fact for those in back of me.) I raise them as an act of reverence and worship to my God, and no other. I would not kneel, lay prostrate,or praise verbally any other as well — worship should be orderly and composed (1 Cor 14:26-40) and always directed towards God. Good article. 1 Peter 2:8 has the Reformation Study Bible connecting it with Psalm 63:4 and 141:2. A couple of my favorite commentaries speak of this verse in 1 Timothy 2:8 not only as an image of raising hands physically, although in Hebraic and Christian practices of the First century this was actually done, this verse speaks also to the holiness with which one does this act. That is, without contentions, malice, anger, and the like (vv. 1-15). Now, through the Reformational fires of theology (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli — all the way to today — Packer, Sproul, Scott, Grudem, Erickson, and the like), we should all know that true “Holy Hands” raised are not made holy by anything we do, but whom we submit to — Jesus. His righteousness clothes us and we would never be able to raise them on our own accord but through what Christ has clothed us in, swapped out for our stead, finished on the cross in our place. (Hebrews 8:8-13; 9:11-14).
8 But God found fault with the people and said:
“The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear…. When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
We are freed by Christ to what? Serve him… worship is part of our serving him (intimately entwined in fact). Grudem has a great chapter on this (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, pp.1003-1015).
Erickson has this to say in one section:
Worship
Another activity of the church is worship. Whereas edification focuses on the believers and benefits them, worship concentrates on the Lord. The early church came together to worship on a regular schedule, a practice commanded and commended by the apostle Paul. His direction to the Corinthians to set aside money on the first day of every week (I Cor. 16:2) intimates that they regularly gathered for worship on that day. The writer to the Hebrews exhorts his readers not to neglect the assembling of themselves together as was the habit of some (Heb. 10:25). Although worship emphasizes God, it is also intended to benefit the worshipers. This we infer from Paul’s warning against prayers, songs, and thanksgivings that fail to edify because no one is present to interpret their meaning to those who do not understand (1 Cor. 14:15-17).
Worship, the praise and exaltation of God, was a common Old Testament practice, as can be seen particularly in the Book of Psalms. And in the pictures of heaven in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere, the people of God are represented as recognizing and declaring his greatness. In this aspect of its activity, the church centers its attention on who and what God is, not on itself. It aims at appropriately expressing God’s nature, not at satisfying its own feelings.
It is important at this point to note the locus of the various functions of the church. In biblical times the church gathered for worship and instruction. Then it went out to evangelize. In worship, the members of the church focus on God; in instruction and fellowship, they focus on themselves and fellow Christians; in evangelism, they turn their attention to non-Christians. It is well for the church to keep some separation among these several activities. If this is not done, one or more may be crowded out. As a result the church will suffer since all of these activities, like the various elements in a well-balanced diet, are essential to the spiritual health and well-being of the body. For example, worship of God will suffer if the gathering of the body becomes oriented primarily to the interaction among Christians, or if the service is aimed exclusively at evangelizing the unbelievers who are present. This was not the pattern of the church in the Book of Acts. Rather, believers gathered to praise God and be edified; then they went forth to reach the lost in the world without.
(Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed, pp. 1066-1067)
I raise my hands to focus in on Him, to lift up my meager praise knowing that it is accepted only because of the work He performed… the only praise worthy even to be lifted on high.
In the concluding sentence (8) Paul returns to the theme of public prayer, drawing attention to three important conditions. First, the lifting up of holy hands suggests a believing approach, true holiness being attainable only through the righteousness of Christ. Secondly, true prayer cannot exist side by side with anger. Thirdly, prayer and disputing do not go together. Our attitude to others does affect our approach to God. (Wenham, Motyer, Carson, and France, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, cf., 1 Tim 2:8)
The BBC Culture
(This is posted due to a conversation started on my LiveLeak account.) I have talked about the bias embedded in NPR previously, but few are aware of the embedded bias at the BBC. And so, I wanted to get a critique of their biases into the anals of PapaG. I often talk to people who see to think they are in am elite class of people when they mention they listen to the BBC. Don’t get me wrong, they bring stories about world events other news orgs miss. However, many people are not trained to get the bias behind their headlines. The Daily Mail, a UK newsdaily, has an interesting article from a while ago:
It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’
While the BBC admitted their bias and have tried to correct it, they still do not know what impartiality is — not to mention political correctness and multi-culturalism. Someone who worked at the BBC for some time (Peter Sissons, a 20 year veteran of BBC News) wrote in his memoirs about some of this culture of progressiveness at the BBC, to wit NewsBusters wrote on:
While liberal media bias is often easy to spot, it’s rare to see veteran journalists come clean on the biases of their own news outlets. But when one does, it’s hard to dispute the first hand account of the newsroom’s consistently leftist politics.
In his new memoirs, veteran BBC news anchor Peter Sissons details the startling depths of leftist politics that pervade coverage at Britain’s state-owned broadcaster. Leftism is “in its very DNA,” Sissions claims of the BBC.
In excerpts from the memoirs, titled “When One Door Closes”, published in Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper, Sissons details the groupthink mentality at the BBC:
At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is blowing. This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.
Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.
All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.
Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.
In short, pick the default leftist position on any issue, and odds are it is the position held and espoused on air by the BBC.
And while leftist politics color the news at the channel, they also dictate its corporate structure and inner workings, according to Sissons. One’s politics, he writes, can dictate one’s success or failure in climbing the Company’s corporate ladder.
If Human Resources — or Personnel, as it used to be known — advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it.
But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.
In fact, there are whole blogs that deal with the bias at the BBC. Biased BBC for instance. In one forum this was posted in relation to the memoirs of Peter Sissons being released:
Very interesting complete article, I encourage you to read it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…r-Sissons.html
Originally Posted by Andrew Marr
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”
Originally Posted by BBC Drama Commissioning Controller
“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”
Ben Stephenson. BBC Drama Commissioning Controller
Guardian, July 16th 2009
Originally Posted by BBC Internal Report
“An internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias. That report criticised the BBC for coming late to several important stories including euroscepticism and immigration, which it described as ‘off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone’.”
“BBC programmes are being undermined by the liberal culture of its staff”
BBC report on the BBC report on biased BBC reporting
Which is funny, as the BBC spends 86% of its recruitment budget on advertising in one unashamedly left-wing newspaper – The Guardian.
BBC spent a colossal:
1. Guardian £231,944
2. The Telegraph £32,535
3. The Times £6,159
The Guardian on itself: “…a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition.” The Guardian is also has a miniscule readership, Telegraph is read by more than twice as many people, and the Times more.
…(read more)… (emphasis and stylization added)
A round table. Take note that the point Carol makes is one I make about NPR:
For instance, NPR: 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments. (SOURCE)
Read more: RPT What “Is” Fascism (Two Posts Combined & Imported from Old Blog)
Highway to Hell
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” – CS Lewis, God in the Dock
Don’t cry over spilled milk~Thomas Sowell
EPA now to regulate spilled milk — really
Despite the old saying, “Don’t cry over spilled milk,” the Environmental Protection Agency is doing just that.
We all understand why the EPA was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.
In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file “emergency management” plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train “first responders” and build “containment facilities” if there is a flood of spilled milk.
Since there is no free lunch, all of this is going to cost the farmers both money and time that could be going into farming– and is likely to end up costing consumers higher prices for farm products.
It is going to cost the taxpayers money as well, since the EPA is going to have to hire people to inspect farms, inspect farmers’ reports and prosecute farmers who don’t jump through all the right hoops in the right order. All of this will be “creating jobs,” even if the tax money removed from the private sector correspondingly reduces the jobs that can be created there.
Does anyone seriously believe that any farmer is going to spill enough milk to compare with the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the BP oil spill?
Do you envision people fleeing their homes, as a flood of milk comes pouring down the mountainside, threatening to wipe out the village below?
It doesn’t matter. Once the words are in the law, it makes no difference what the realities are. The bureaucracy has every incentive to stretch the meaning of those words, in order to expand its empire.
The 1099 Repudiation
Democrats now claim that the infamous 1099 business reporting mandate that the Senate repealed this week was an accident, as if they were as surprised as everyone else to learn that this destructive provision had crept by itself into law. The truth is that the 1099 rule emerged from the same core ideology as ObamaCare, and its overwhelming repudiation by Democrats may be an important inflection point in the health-care debate.
The 1099 rule is the first of the ballast to go over the side, and Democrats hope that such “improvements” will be enough to ride out the public storm. Then again, they also claimed that voters would learn to love ObamaCare once it had been stuffed through Congress, among many other misjudgments. The political history is revealing and instructive.
Less than a year ago, liberals couldn’t see how anyone could possibly object to a rule requiring businesses to file 1099 tax forms with the Internal Revenue Service every time they spent more than $600 with a single vendor. Yes, this would result in a vast new paperwork and accounting burden for 30 million businesses and hit start-ups hardest, not to mention farms, charities and churches. But Democrats saw IRS surveillance of nearly all business-to-business transactions as merely an exercise in good government.
The point was to close the “tax gap,” the largely mythological difference between the estimated taxes due under the business tax code and what the IRS actually collects. During the Bush years, Democrats and more than a few Republicans convinced themselves that businesses were cheating the government out of revenues through deliberate under-reporting and various tax shelters.
This notion prevailed at the Senate Finance Committee under both Democratic Chairman Max Baucus and Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley. Budget Chairman Kent Conrad was another evangelist. In its first budget, the Obama White House promised “robust” tax compliance enforcement “to narrow the annual tax gap of over $300 billion,” in contrast to the lethargy of its predecessor.
The 1099 ObamaCare footnote thus received no scrutiny at first because it was so mundane. Everyone in Washington agreed that corporations were stealing billions of dollars every year that rightfully belonged to Congress to spend. (The issue only blew up when the IRS’s National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, followed by the GOP and the business lobby, made it a priority last summer.)